Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ******
"We will always remember. We will always be
proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free."
RONALD REAGAN

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

THE CONSTITUTION PART IX - FREEDOMS OF SPEECH , PRESS AND DISSENT

Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment of the Constitution and the beginning of our Bill of Rights, establishes four of our most cherished and important rights as citizens of The United States. While this series has covered the Freedom of Religion in the first segment of the series, this will cover the remainder of the First Amendment, the Freedoms of Speech, Press and our right to express our dissent and grievances with our government.

One of the keys to understanding what the Framers intended with regards to these basic and fundamentally important Freedoms found in the First Amendment is located in the very beginning of the Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment...." with the stress falling upon the non - establishment of law.

To allow a nation and its citizenry the right of free expression through speech, press, and dissent with the government it must first be established that the government by law does not have the capability of creating any form of law that can inhibit these rights. The Framers in their collective wisdom understood from experience that a government that does not have the Constitutional restraints in place to prevent the establishment of law that could regulate or completely eliminate a citizens right of free expression was a government not by and of the people but one that becomes dictatorial over its people.

The very idea that begins the Constitution with, "We the People." establishing us as a nation and a government whose very existence is by the will of the people in itself demanded that as our first and fundamentally most important right of free expression be created by prohibiting the government from denying those rights by creating laws preventing or hampering them.

Thus the phrase which begins the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment..." of religion, or prohibiting speech, the press or expressing grievances with our government.

This profound establishment by the Framers concerning our rights as citizens removes any governmental restraints, regulation or law from these most precious and cherished of our rights as Americans. In the same manner it also places full responsibility of the exercise of these rights solely in the hands of , "We the People."

With these fundamental rights given us by law in the Bill of Rights we as citizens have a profound responsibility to exercise our rights of speech, press and dissent WITH responsibility. By establishing personal responsibility for the people the Framers understood the necessity in a free society for each citizen to assume personal responsibility for their actions, their tongue, their pen and their government.

This also establishes that in the exercise of these rights we as responsible citizens must not abuse these rights to hamper or trample the same rights of our fellow citizens. Responsibility at times calls for discretion, consideration, respect, restraint and understanding. Whether it is in the practice of religion, speech our writings or our dissatisfaction of our government the Framers placed the responsibility of we as free Americans upon our own conscience to control each of these freedoms in our lives.

Abusing these rights to the detriment of a fellow citizens or the press in destroying the character of an individual or threatening the security of the nation and its citizens through irresponsible reporting in not what the Framers intended in establishing these fundamental rights.

The abuse of these rights also necessitates applying the law where applicable. For instance while we have a right to express dissent with our government, we do not have the right to express that dissent by destroying property or defacing the same. Thus the law must step in to protect property from destruction of defacing.

As citizens of , "the land of the free, " we have great responsibility in the exercise or our freedoms both to our nation and our fellow Americans. We must exercise these freedoms while responsibly keeping from trampling on the freedoms of others and respecting their right to be free as well. The Framers understood this great responsibility and its necessity for the establishment of a nation, " of the people, " and a nation of free American citizens!

14 Comments:

It's shameful that so many in this country take extreme advantage of their freedom by trashing the very values of the people who gave us these freedoms, and those who have fought and died that we may remain free.

Putting graffiti on national monuments is not "expressing opinions", it is vandalism.

Breaking store windows (private property) during demonstrations is not "expressing opinions", it is vandalism.

Throwing bags of feces is not "expressing opinions", it is assault.

Engaging in diplomatic activities unauthorized by the Executive Branch and the State Department and further, delivering nonexistant messages from the leader of one foreign country to another is not "fact finding", it is pure idiocy.

The only way you can justify the above is either a) you're incredibly obtuse, or b) you're just another troll who will argue any point that disagrees with the blogger on whose threads you comment, no matter how mindless, groundless or ridiculous your comments happen to be.

Sorry, Mudkitty, but I've been to several demonstrations and counterdemonstrations, and seen rank and file liberals vandalizing heavily and with great cheer; I once even saw one "peaceful" liberal throw a brick that broke a police horse's leg (when the horse was merely standing there in a line with no rider on top). I suppose since it was a "peace" demonstration rather than a pro-animal one, it was a perfectly acceptable, liberal thing to do. And this was pre-Rove, in fact it was during the Nixon Administration.

I was 16 during the horse incident. In more recent times, while still living in San Francisco, for example, I have seen liberals, first hand, smashing store windows and doing other stuff like tossing newspaper vending machines into the middle of the street during anti-Bush/anti-war demonstrations. I've also seen liberals staging sit-ins in major intersections, blocking traffic so that buses and street cars couldn't get people to work or appointments on time, fire engines and ambulances were jammed up and had to waste precious time backing out and finding other routes (I only hope that those they were en route to try and save were fellow liberals who approved of these sit-ins rather than any innocent victims).

I would love to see some actual documentation containing some sort of evidence that vandalism is being committed by "paid Rove Republican operators acting as moles", ROTFLMAO!!!!

Are you just spouting this out of your imagination, or can you produce a link to someplace, excluding DU or KOS, et al, that substantiates this rather far out accusation?

Your silence answers my question. You have a flair for making up the "facts" you employ in your arguments, which is why you never link to any evidence, no matter how far-out and nut-brained your statements are.